With the search for the next president of Texas A&M University-Commerce well under way, members of the search committee should be appreciated for their efforts in whittling down the list of candidates they will eventually turn over to the Chancellor, who will in turn pass along his list to the Board of Regents.
It has been said that the search will center on finding someone who is able to rise to the new challenges the University will face in the coming years or as it was put in layman’s terms: “walk on water.”
With this in mind, the Prospectus for this position should reflect these challenges and present the opportunities that will greet the next leader. And while the job summary should not sugar-coat the situation at A&M-Commerce, it should not present a completely dark picture either.
The Prospectus does not paint a pretty picture for whoever takes over.
Among the many concerns listed are the “intense competition at the undergraduate level, particularly for freshmen and sophomore students” from area colleges and universities. This has been reflected in the continuing struggle to attract and retain these critical students.
The listing on Academic Search’s Web site also sites another concern.
“Since the 2003 Reaffirmation Site Visit by the Commission on Colleges (COC) of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the university has been required to submit follow-up reports related to planning and assessment and the use of the results of assessment to improve institutional operations and educational outcomes. The uneven attention to these fundamental processes observed by the site team in 2003 indicated that they were not integrated into the culture of the institution at that time, and meetings with various campus constituencies indicate that such integration is still incomplete.”
In other words, the University is on an action plan aka the strategic plan.
And a plan is a good place to start, but not everyone is on board. Or as the Prospectus puts it, “… there are those who continue to view such matters as passing fads or nothing more than an episodic accreditation requirement.”
Further on into the strategic plan, the candidate is told the “new president must actively engage with the campus … to give it legitimacy …”
And then there are the money issues.
Incomes in Commerce are behind the state average. And endowments are not as good as one would expect, but getting better. Under “The University’s Resource Mix,” it lists externally generated research funding under $2 million as “extremely low.”
Granted, a realistic depiction of the status of the campus is needed to accurately inform all the candidates. It’s not an ad for a car. But after reading the summary, one has to wonder if it could not dissuade some quality candidates from applying. Would you?
Some have even theorized the Prospectus may have been written as such to limit the number of outside candidates from applying to this “briar patch.” In this theory, someone from inside the University or a returning member of the administration could take the helm.
While theories abound and rumors swirl, committee members will have the chance to make the biggest decisions initially in the process. Let us hope they will keep the focus on the future and not the “good ole” past.